A.K. MATHUR, J.—Since both these petitions involve a common question of law, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. By both these petitions, the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi dated 9.9.1987 has been challenged by the petitioners whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance against the accused Ramlal, Pukhraj, Kering, Mangilal, Tejaram, Surajmal Manroopji, Bagaram, Ramnarain and Amritlal under Section 3(b) and 7(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on police challan. 3. The facts giving rise to these petitions are that a complaint was filed by Rooparam by caste Jatiya (Reigar) to the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi alleging therein that in Sheoganj there is a Kameshwar Mahadeo Sewa Mandal Trust (hereinafter referred to as the Trust). This Trust used to look-after the temple of Kameshwar Mahadeo. From 30. 4. 1987 to 4. 5. 1987 the pratishtha celebration were going on and open bids were invited to participate in the yagya. The bids were held on 28.4.1987 and 29.4.1987 and in this open bid he gave the highest bid for 5th member to participate in the Satchandi Yagya. His bid was for Rs. 1,001/-. This bid was accepted on the spot and he was also garlanded by Surajmal s/o Kaniram on behalf of the trustees. Thereafter he was also invited to participate in the Yagya. On 29.4.1987 he was directed by the trustees/management that he should come on 30. 4. 1987 at 7 A. M. along with his wife. In pursuance of that he reached at the site of Yagya with his wife to participate in the Yagya. He was also accompanied by 15-16 members of his community. Before the commoncement of the Hawan, he along with his wife was summoned in the office and there one Pukhraj s/o Mithalal Shrimali Brahmin, Kering s/o Heeraji Suthar, Teja s/o Dalla Chhipa (Darji)/ Ramlal s/o Jassa Chhipa (Darji) all residents of Sheoganj and Baga s/o Doonga Suthar resident of£umerpur, Manroop s/o Nawaji Bali Sumerpur, Surajmal s/o Kaniram Darji resident of Sumerpur, Mangilal s/o Jawana Ghanchi and Amrit Lal Ojha were present. In the presence of the members of my community Pukhraj s/o Mithalal Shrimali Brahmin, Kering s/o Heeraji Suthar, Teja s/o Dalla Darji informed him that he alongwith his wife cannot sit in the Yagya as he belongs to Raigar community. In the presence of the members of my community Pukhraj s/o Mithalal Shrimali Brahmin, Kering s/o Heeraji Suthar, Teja s/o Dalla Darji informed him that he alongwith his wife cannot sit in the Yagya as he belongs to Raigar community. He further alleged that Pukhraj s/o Mithalal also informed him that Acharya Ram Narain has informed them that the complainant Rooparam cannot be permitted to sit in the Yagya for the purpose of giving Ahuti. He further alleged in the complaint that all these persons clearly informed him that since he belongs to a lower caste, therefore, he cannot sit in the Yagya. He along with his wife forcibly pushed out of the office. Therefore, he sent a complaint to the Collector, Sirohi. This was sent to the police for investigation and then on 3.6.1987 he was called at the Police Station and he gave a detailed report of the incident. But Gop Singh Incharge of the Police Station did not correctly recorded the statements and threatened him and directed him that he should sign the statement whatever he dictates. He further did not permit him to read the statement. Then on 6.6.1987 he recorded statements of 7 witnesses, namely, Nathuram s/o Punaji etc. But at that time also he did not take down them faithfully and even threatened Nathuram. He alleged that he requested Gopsingh that he should fairly deal with the matter. But he threatened him of dire consequences. He further alleged that on 6. 7. 1987 he came to know that a false report of the incident has been submitted to the Collector, Sirohi. Thereafter, it is alleged that on 1.7.1987 he was orally informed that Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirohi has come to make an enquiry and he should come and participate in that enquiry. On 2.7.1987 he requested that all the witnesses are very poor and it was not possible for them to come to Sirohi. Thereafter, Deputy Superintendent of Police came to Sheoganj and recorded the statements of the witnesses. On this complaint, the Superintendent of Police directed the S. H. O., Sheoganj to register a case against the aforesaid accused persons. After close of the investigation a challan was filed against the 10 accused persons in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi under Sections 3(b) and 7(d) of the Act. On this complaint, the Superintendent of Police directed the S. H. O., Sheoganj to register a case against the aforesaid accused persons. After close of the investigation a challan was filed against the 10 accused persons in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi under Sections 3(b) and 7(d) of the Act. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 9.9 1987 has taken cognizance against the accused petitioners and issued summons. It is against this order the present petitions have been filed before this Court. 4. Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that prima facie there is no material on record against the accused petitioners for taking cognizance. Learned counsel also submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. In suppot of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to Pramatha Nath Talukdar Vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar (1), Sushil Kumar Vs. Vijay Laxmi (2) and Rajmal Vs. State of Rajasthan (3). 5. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the complainant non-petitioner No.2 has also invited my attention to Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi (4), Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi (5) and R.S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Antulay (6) to emphasise that the revisional court should not interfere with an interlocutory order at this stage. 6. It is true that the revisional court has a very limited jurisdiction. The revisional court should sparingly exercise its revisional jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances when there is a failure of justice or error of Justice. In the present case, the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance on the challan filed by the police under Sections 3 (b) and 7 (d) of the Act and issued the summons. Though the learned Magistrate has not passed a detailed order at this stage. It is not necessary for the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance on the basis of the challan to pass a detailed order showing as to on what material he has issued the summons. In the present case, the police has filed a challan and there is sufficient material before the learned Magistrates for issuance of summons. It is not necessary for the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance on the basis of the challan to pass a detailed order showing as to on what material he has issued the summons. In the present case, the police has filed a challan and there is sufficient material before the learned Magistrates for issuance of summons. I need not to go into the controversy whether the impugned order is an interlocutory order or a final order and whether a bar contained in Section 379 (2) Cr.P.C. is applicable or not and whether under Section 482 Cr.P.C. such matters can be interferred with or not. Suffice it to say at this stage that on the basis of the material, which has been placed before the learned Magistrate, it cannot be said that he has not applied his mind and issued the process in a mechanical manner. 7. In Pramatha Nath Talukdars case (1) their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with the scope and power of the Magistrate under Section 202 Cr.P.C. observed that the Magistrate should issue the process on the basis of the material and he must apply his mind. That is not the case here. Here, a regular challan has been filed by the police and on the basis of that challan and the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the process was issued. 8. In Sushil Kumars Case (2) on a complaint under Section 494 read with Sections 109 and 120-B I.P.C. the Magistrate issued process and in that matter their Lordships observed that the Magistrate should have applied his mind to the material on record and should have passed a speaking order before issuing the process. But that is not the case here. Here, the case was registered by the police and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on the basis of the challan filed by the police. Therefore, this case also does not help to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel has also taken me to the statements of the witnesses, namely, Rooparam, Mohanlal, Shyamlal Mohanlal, Himmataram, Kistoorchand, Pukharam, Nathu, Kriparam and Mst. Shanti. It is true that some of the witnesses have made a bald allegation and some has made a specific allegation against all these accused persons. But this is not the stage where the matter could be gone into in such a minutest detail. Shanti. It is true that some of the witnesses have made a bald allegation and some has made a specific allegation against all these accused persons. But this is not the stage where the matter could be gone into in such a minutest detail. There are allegations against these 10 accused persons. Specially looking to the gravity of the matter that people are still suffering from old caste taboo, it will not be proper to reappreciate the whole matter at this stage. In this connection, a reference may also be made to Section 12 of the Act, which reads as under :- 12. Presumption by courts in certain cases-: Where any act constituting an offence under this act is committed in relation to a member of a Scheduled Caste, the court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved that such act was committed on the ground of "untouchability," 10. Section 12 makes a special provision under the Act and it has brought about a change in the judicial jurisprudence i.e. normally the burden is always on the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. But in the present case Section 12 of the Act has made an exception and changed the burden that when an allegation is made by a member of the Scheduled Caste then the court shall presume unless the contrary is proved that the offence of untouchability was committed by the accused. It is true that the learned Magistrate has to take a greater care while drawing the presumption. The higher is the punishment the greater degree of caution is required in the matter. In the case like present one the Magistrate has to exercise great caution as it is likely to be abused But nonetheless the intention of the legislature is well evidenced from the fact that they have brought about procedural change in our Angle Saxon set up. 11. Learned counsel has also invited my attention to Section 14 of the Act which is also a very peculiar provision and Section 14 of the Act even subjected the Companies and Trusts for punishment under this Act. Section 14 reads as under:- "14. 11. Learned counsel has also invited my attention to Section 14 of the Act which is also a very peculiar provision and Section 14 of the Act even subjected the Companies and Trusts for punishment under this Act. Section 14 reads as under:- "14. Offences by Companies; (1) If the person committing an offence under this Act is a company, every person who at the time offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly; Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due deligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Not with standing anything contained in Sub-section (1) where an offence under this Act has been committed with the consent of any director, or manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that, offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation- For the purposes of this section : (a) Company means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals, and (b) Director in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm." 12. Section 14 of the Act makes every person who at the time of commission of the offence was incharge of and was responsible to conduct the business on behalf of the Company liable under the present Act. A proviso has also been added that if he proves that at the time of commission of the offence, it was not within his knowledge or that he exercised all due deligence to prevent the commission of the offence. This is only a mitigating circumstance which has been engrafted in the proviso. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 further provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) if an offence has been committed with the consent of any director, or manager or secretary or other officer of the company then such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty under the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 further provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) if an offence has been committed with the consent of any director, or manager or secretary or other officer of the company then such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty under the Act. In the explanation the company has been defined to mean any body corporate which includes a firm or other association of individuals and director in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm. In this set up learned counsel submitted that it will not be proper to exercise the revisional jurisdiction as an allegation has been made against these accused persons and matter has been investigated by a Senior Officer of the Police i. e. Deputy Superintendent of Police and on the basis of that investigation a challan has been filed and on the basis of this challan the learned Magistrate has issued the process. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that there was material on the basis of which the learned Magistrate has rightly issued the process and this Court should not interfere with the same in its revisional jurisdiction. I am wholly in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the non-petitioner that at present it cannot be said that there was no material before the learned Magistrate to take cognizance against these accused persons. Thus, the contention of Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner has no merit and it is overruled. 13. The next question which Mr. Singhvi urged before me is that there was a delay in filing the complaint. According to the learned counsel, the com-plaint was filed on 10.7.1987, whereas the incident alleged to have happened on 29/0 4.1987 this delay is fatal as within this span of time the complainant had sufficient opportunity to falsely rope as many persons as he likes. It is true that filing of the first information report or complaint belatedly is a very important factor which normally a criminal court takes into consideration. But in the present case, it is not true. The complainant was fairly vigilant in pursuing the matter. He wrote a letter on 2. 5. 1987 to the President protesting against the action of the petitioner in not permitting him to participate in the Satchandi Yagya when his bid has been accepted on 28/29.4. But in the present case, it is not true. The complainant was fairly vigilant in pursuing the matter. He wrote a letter on 2. 5. 1987 to the President protesting against the action of the petitioner in not permitting him to participate in the Satchandi Yagya when his bid has been accepted on 28/29.4. 1987 for the Yagya to be commenced on 30.4.1987. After that he has filed a com-plaint to the Collector, Superintendent of Police. The Collector has in fact directed investigation in the matter and investigation was taken up on 3 6,1987. But the Incharge of the Police Station had not faithfully recorded the statements. Thereafter he again requested the Superintendent of Police that investigation has not been completed fairly. Thereafter, the Deputy Superintendent of Police was appointed to investigate into the matter and after investigation was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police the police filed the present challan. Therefore, in the present case, it cannot be said that the complaint was belated. Secondly, we cannot lose sight of the realities of the life that these persons are lowly placed persons and because of their illiteracy a premium cannot be given to the accused. Thus, the contention of Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner has also no merit and the same is overruled. 14. In the result, 1 dont find any merit in both the petitions and they are dismissed.